Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 3, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-1469 Lower Tribunal No. 23-3255 ________________ James F. Chmiel, et al., Appellants, vs. NXTLVL Services, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Black Law, P.A., and Kelsey K. Black (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and John Cody German, Justin S. Maya and Nicholas M. Nash, II, for appellees.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462, 463–64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Whether relief should be granted pursuant to Rule 1.540 is a fact specific question and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion.”); Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“[W]here inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir, then upon timely application accompanied by a reasonable and credible explanation the matter should be permitted to be heard on the merits.”); Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 979 So. 2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Florida has a long-standing policy in favor of deciding lawsuits on their merits.”); Lloyd’s Underwriter’s At London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“In implementing this policy, ‘if there be any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits.’” (quoting N.

Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 852–53 (Fla. 1962)).